This new Texas abortion law—whoa! If you’ve clicked, read through that first sentence, and are still with me, you probably are aware of the law’s main provisions, but the little details are startling too. For example:
Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.
In other words, a Texas woman impregnated in a sexual assault may not procure an abortion after about the first six weeks of pregnancy; if she does, she or her doctor, or her friend who drove her to the clinic, or her mother who gave her money, may be sued in civil court—but, relax, the person who sues her can’t be the one who raped her. That guy is enjoined, as lawyers say. If he wants some of the bounty (which is ten grand), he’ll have to work something out with someone else. His brother, maybe.
The immediately preceding section of the law—the whole text is here—reads:
Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney’s fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.
No doubt the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide in some instances for a defendant who prevails to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. The purpose would be to discourage frivolous or weak lawsuits: if you sue and lose, you have to pay the other guy’s costs. The crafters of the abortion law took care to state that it would not be subject to any such arrangement. Abortion vigilantes must not be discouraged from bringing their suits!
The Supreme Court’s decisions—majority and dissents—in the matter are here. All are worth reading. In my view, the conservative majority—three Trump appointees plus Thomas and Alito—is just running interference for Texas. They aren’t saying the law is constitutional (it plainly isn’t), but there are “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that give them pause, so, no, they won’t stop the law from going into effect. It’s a way of saying they’re going to play along with Texas’s absurd workaround for its new law being flatly unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedents going back close to 50 years haven’t been reversed, the justices insist—but it is in fact the case that Texas has barred women living there from securing a constitutional right. This is okay because . . . “complexity,” “novelty,” “procedures.” The justices tip their hat to Texas for being so clever.
For a woman in Texas, how would it be different if Roe and Casey had been [formally] overturned?
Comments